Talk:Anil Dhasmana

Revert
Regarding this revert claiming there is "no basis", Dhasmana's Balochistan link is sourced in the article. Also, the recent statement by Kulbhushan Jadhav has obviously brought his activities into attention. Even if we put this aside, there are two Indian sources in this article which are much older and imply Dhasmana oversaw Balochistan affairs prior to becoming chief. Thus it is clearly relevant.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The 2 references you mention state that he is an expert on Balochistan. It is pure No_original_research on your part to extend that further and relate that to Balochistan conflict. Secondly, if you the read you link you posted yourself states that this is alleged and it is also unsure which "Anil Kumar" is referred to here. Let's not push POV edits here rather base these on actual reliable references. If we start basing these on frivolous allegations then multiple Pakistan related Wikipedia articles would be have to categorized under "sponsor of terror" categories. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the video of Jadhav only referred to Dhasmana, not any other Anil Kumar. You have not quite explained why a high-ranking intelligence officer, known to specialize on Balochistan (per Indian claims prior to Jadhav), should now excluded from that conflict area.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think in your mind every specialization has to be with some conflict which is as I said making this original research because you are drawing an inference which is not stated in the references being discussed. Intelligence agencies do have individuals who understand some regions better then others for various reasons which could have nothing to do with warfare. For example, he could have specialized in Balochistan customs, traditions, language, geography, history so references correctly claim he is a Balochistan expert. They do not state that he is an expert on the conflict in Balochistan and even if this was the case (assuming even if) he could be an expert from a purely academic sense, one who has closely followed it and studied it. This does not match the category which is clearly meant for people involved in it. Lastly, I don't think I should be the one giving these explanations (especially to an experience editor as yourself) but it is your imperative to provide reliable sources which clearly state this not hear-say videos(whose authenticity is under doubts) or random long drawn conclusions which have no factual basis. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)